M and J
[2005] FMCAfam 217
•3 May 2005
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| M & J | [2005] FMCAfam 217 |
| FAMILY LAW – Children – residence – contact – no instructions from parties – apparent agreement between parties – final orders consistent with Regulation 8 report – liberty to apply. |
| Applicant: | CDM |
| Respondent: | CCJ |
| File Number: | CAM 24 of 2005 |
| Judgment of: | Mowbray FM |
| Hearing date: | 3 May 2005 |
| Delivered at: | Canberra |
| Delivered on: | 3 May 2005 |
REPRESENTATION
| Advocate for the Applicant: | No appearance |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Mr Howard |
ORDERS
The children SMM, born December 1990, and MCM, born December 1995, reside with their father, CCJ.
The child KAM, born July 1993, reside with her mother, CDM.
There be contact as agreed between the parents.
Each party have liberty to apply to have the matter re-listed before this Court.
The Regulation 8 Report compiled by Ms Sue Connor be released to the parties and their legal representatives.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT CANBERRA |
CAM24 of 2005
| CDM |
Applicant
And
| CCJ |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This matter came before me today for final residence and contact orders for the three children of the relationship, namely SMM born December 1990, MCM born December 1995 and KAM born July 1993.
On 7 March 2005 Brewster FM made interim orders in relation to KAM and MCM.
At today's hearing there was no appearance for CDM. Mr Howard, agent for CCJ’s Wagga Wagga solicitors, appeared for CCJ.
Mr Howard indicated that his principals had been unable to contact CCJ and they suspected that he had moved from X to the south coast as he had previously indicated he wished to do.
Mr Howard also referred to the Regulation 8 report prepared by Ms Sue Connor dated 29 April 2005 which had recently been provided to him and his principals.
It was apparent from this report that by the time of the interviews conducted by Ms Connor on 18 April 2005 the parties had reached some settlement on the residence and matters. This confirmed a Mediation Memorandum of 14 March 2005 on the Court file in which Counsellor Lang reported that agreement had been reached on residence, contact and other specific issues. She also noted that consent orders had been negotiated. No such orders have been filed in the Court.
Mr Howard told the Court that as his principals had been unable to contact CCJ he had no instructions on orders that could be made by the Court. However he suggested that the Court make orders consistent with what was set out in the Connor report:
1.3 Contrary to the interview schedule planned the parties arrived at my office together and then suggested that they be seen together because they had reached a resolution of their dispute.
Paragraph 2.1 set out the proposals:
2.1The parties proposed that the current residential arrangement continue for their children and were both adamant that the children's wishes should prevail at all times.
In view of this apparent agreement between the parents I intend to make orders along the lines outlined. These provide for SMM and MCM to continue to reside with their father but for KAM to reside with her mother. The report is vague about the details of contact so I have ordered that it should be as agreed between the parties.
Neither party have had the opportunity to put submissions on these orders. As I have noted, the mother did not appear and the father's solicitors have been unable to contact him.
Consequently I have thought it appropriate to make an order that each party have liberty to apply to have the matter relisted if the orders are not as they wished or if they would prefer to fine tune or have more detail in the orders, particularly for contact matters.
I certify that the preceding eleven (11) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Mowbray FM
Associate: Zhan Chiam
Date: 6 May 2005
0
0
0